Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
Welcome to Money Talks. My name is Mike Campbell. I'm glad you're with us. You know, today we're going to start off, and it's one of the things that I've been concerned about in the country, and that is the restrictions on free speech. And in case people don't understand, free speech plays a pivotal role, I think, in a lot of things, from public safety, i.e. it gives sort of a lightning rod or gives people a
a way to vent their complaints. And if you shut that down, it's going to be manifested in other ways. You have so many studies that support free speech and economic growth also. I mean, it's undeniable that they go hand in hand as freedom with economic growth. And it's a fundamental right, I think, of individuals. So we're going to talk more on that with Michael Geist, Dr. Michael Geist, University of
of Ottawa law professor about this new online harms bill. There's aspects that I think you'd give a checkmark to, but other aspects that are indeed troubling. And we'll get into that, as I say, in just a couple of minutes with Canada's research chair on internet and e-commerce. I also got Ozzy along with me. I got Victor. I got Michael. The list is a long one, but first...
This week I saw a friend of mine who I hadn't seen in ages. He's a regular listener to Money Talks. Interesting. He said he thinks he's heard a change of tone in me over the last while, somewhat blunter, somewhat harsher. And he's not the first person to have said that to me. And I think they're probably right. And the reason is straightforward.
We're starting to live the negative consequences of ill-conceived, ideologically driven government policy that's now manifesting in so many areas of our lives. We could be talking cost of living, the lack of affordable housing, to the shocking rise of anti-Semitism. I mean, simply put, you know what? I've got three adult children. I've got three grandchildren. And they deserve a lot better than a health care system that's better known for its wait list and its treatment.
Not long ago, my daughter took our three-year-old, her three-year-old, to the emergency. And she deserves to see a doctor, but she didn't. She waited six hours before giving up and going home. And talk to emergency room doctors, that is not unusual. We're seeing that. You know, friends of my son deserve a lot better than the stress and struggle of trying to find an apartment. It's even in the ballpark of affordability.
Like rents, well, they were always expensive, but way better than they are today before the government allowed unlimited temporary visas. Well, having no idea how many people were actually coming into Canada. So of course there's no planning for housing. And all three levels of government continue to talk about affordable housing while jacking up the cost of new builds. Over 25% of the cost of the new condo in Vancouver is government related, about 30% in Toronto. As for a young person actually buying a home,
in our major urban centers, well, forget about it. It's literally not mathematically feasible to save for a down payment in the first place, given that as much as half of their paycheck is going to some form of tax to the three levels of government. And if they did manage to scrape together a down payment, well, the vast majority can't afford the mortgage payments, given the cost of housing, the record property taxes, the insurance costs, maintenance, all of that stuff, all with after-tax dollars.
The point to get, this isn't a political debate. This is math. And the math says young people can't get into the housing market, maybe unless they get financial help from another source. Now, I know there are people who will disagree and they'll be wrong. Mortgage payments don't give a hot damn who your political favorites are. Come up with the money or you can't buy, let alone afford to own.
As I've said many times, you know, I don't like talking about politics because far too many people are prepared to abandon their principles, common sense, integrity to support their political favorites. And they don't seem to be any interest in a meaningful exchange of ideas, disrespects the norm. And that's turned off millions of Canadians. But you know what? We can't afford to have us tune out. As the National Post's Tristan Hopper states,
You used to be able to safely ignore politics in this country and life would generally be the same. Well, that's not the case anymore. You know, whether we're paying attention or not, we have unaffordable housing rents, medical wait lists, no family doctor, cost of living, immigration, temporary visas, overwhelming our social infrastructure, attacks on free speech, explosion of anti-Semitism, all a direct result of government policy. The lack of focus on finance and economic growth
I find incredibly worrisome. You simply can't run up record amounts of government debt and the accompanying interest costs when the economy is flatlining. The only way out of that debt problem is economic growth. We also have declining productivity and investment per capita. All in all, it's a threat to our standard of living. And my bigger concern, it's our children's future, especially those that come from low-income families. And it doesn't matter what party you voted for.
When our politicians come to grip with that reality, our children pay the price. You know, earlier this month, Darrell Holt, he's the head of Scotiabank Capital Markets, he wrote an article entitled, It's Time to Stop Believing in Policy Fairy Tales.
And I said, oh, man, because this fairy tale of no consequences of defining a declining GDP and investment per capita or free just about everything from unlimited health care to dental care, pharma care, taxpayer funded affordable housing in an era of escalating public debt, unfunded public sector liabilities in a best mediocre to poor economy. Well, that's going to turn into a nightmare.
According to the polls, it already has for about half of Canadians who are worried about their day-to-day finances, let alone the heavy hammer of those people waiting for their mortgage renewals. My message continues to be, disabuse yourself of the fairy tale that the government's going to solve your problems.
or you're going to be in deep trouble. Come on. We've had a 38% increase in the size of the federal public service since 2015. Governments have spent record amounts of money. There's been a record number of promises and photo ops, and yet the lack of affordable rents and housing is worse than ever. Medical wait times are at or near the worst in the G7. GDP per capita is forecast to be the worst in the OECD this decade and the next two after it.
As I said, disabuse yourself of the fairy tale that government's going to solve your problems. Look, I got to be blunt here. I don't give a flying fig about Justin Trudeau or Judd Maxine or Pierre Polyev. I care about our future and our children's future. And ignoring economics, finance, and the consequences of government policy is threatening it.
Just a reminder, you can still find everything we do on Mike's MoneyTalks.ca. You can find it at MoneyTalks Tweets and Michael Campbell's Money Talks on Facebook. I hope you do. I hope you recommend it. Stay tuned, though. I've got Michael Geist.
The new legislation, Bill C-63, has got an awful lot of attention, and I'm glad it has. I think that's a very good thing when people pay attention to what their governments are doing. The stated intent of the bill, I think, is something that virtually all of us, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't support, and that's protecting children from online victimization. And there's other aspects to it, too. But it
It also has some aspects that I think are problematic to many Canadians. That's why I'm so pleased to have on with me Dr. Michael Geist, University of Ottawa Law. Also, of course, the Canada Research Chair, Internet and e-commerce. My go-to expert. He does absolutely brilliant stuff on his podcast, on his blog, and on Twitter, keeping us abreast of these kinds of issues. Michael, thanks so much for finding time for us. My pleasure. Thanks for having me.
Now, you know, Bill C-63 has got, it's one of those things when you start throwing out the name like Bill C-63, at first people sort of glaze over. You know, they're not paying to that attention that they know exactly what the bill's label is. But this one has got more attention than that. I mean, because there's so many aspects to it. And I think changes to the criminal code, changes to, you know, sort of hate speech legislation. That seems to be what's caught the public's attention.
Yeah, no, there's a lot there. This is a bill that involves a lot of different things. I mean, I would characterize it as primarily being about the role and responsibility of internet platforms, which was frankly what the bill was really intended to do. This was supposed to be part of
the third part of the government's internet platform regulation initiative, which involved first broadcasting and then news and then now online harms. And I have to say to the government's credit, their initial plans, I think when it came to the platform regulation were problematic. They got a lot of criticism on it and somewhat unusually compared to some of the other approaches, they actually went back to the drawing board. They brought in a lot of experts. And I think where they listened to those experts, where they dealt specifically with
responsibility of platforms dealing specifically with several enumerated harms. Actually, I think the legislation provides a pretty good starting point for debate. I think there's areas where it can be improved, but this is probably the best of the three in terms of those aspects.
There are, however, additional elements that have, as you say, attracted a lot of attention around both the criminal code and the Human Rights Act that I think are less about the role of platforms, more about addressing concerns respect to hate. I think those are real concerns right now. But I also think that some of the provisions in there are rightly attracting quite a lot of controversy. Okay.
You know, forgive me for digressing, but I have to also think the context for me is when I look at the hate on our streets, the anti-Semitism that we've had expressed in some areas of academia, some areas of union, some, you know, in so many different places, and we haven't seen our anti-Semitism.
you know, we have existing hate legislation and it hasn't been enforced on a regular basis or a consistent basis. So I sort of looked at this part and go kind of, are you kidding? And again, I'm digressing, but I can't help, but to mention that, that we have, we're certainly not enforcing hate crime legislation in so many other contexts throughout this country right now. Well, I think certainly that's the prism that there are many people who are looking at it and, and sort of, and I think you raised the question of,
when it comes to hate on our streets, is the problem that we don't have laws that can deal with these effectively, or is it that we're not doing a good enough job of enforcement? And, and I think you can make a pretty compelling case that there are some laws already on the books. This, this seeks to enhance that by trying to bring in a hate motivation as part of, of a crime and try to ensure that there are penalties commensurate with that. But, but,
But I agree with you. I think there has been a lot of concern that the existing laws haven't been well enforced. And I don't think that's necessarily a federal issue, although I think that you need leadership from federal politicians. I think that's often mayors, that's chief of police, that's oftentimes what's a failure at a local level. That said, there is also an online element to much of this. And part of what the legislation is trying to do is
deal with the role that large platforms might have in amplifying some of that hate and the concern that they too have a role to play and may not have been stepping up to the plate in the way that we might otherwise hope.
What I see here is it feels like an omnibus bill. There's so many aspects to it, like major aspects to it, that maybe it would have been better to divide so we could have a proper debate. Or maybe the goal was not to have us because if they can, if the government can respond to everything by saying, oh, you support then children being victimized online. You know, I mean, it opens it up to that approach, at least in conversations.
combating criticism, but it just seems like it's just so many different areas. I mean, and as I said, I think the concerns of the public seems to be focused on, you know, changing a criminal code. I mean, the idea that I could spend life in prison
you know, if I sort of say the wrong thing or run afoul of people in that way, I just find just a head shaker. It just seems so out of bounds and so over the top. You know, I've talked to several lawyers on it and they said, this ain't going through. But I still say, well, the point is somebody thought it would. Somebody actually thought that was a plan to put in a formal bill.
Yeah. I mean, listen, you know, respectfully, no one's going to jail for life or something they say. And that's not what that legislation says either, to be honest. It is, and I think you're right. It is an omnibus piece of legislation. And personally, I think it was a mistake. I think that they would have been far better to have
brought forward legislation that focused on the internet platform related issues, which would have been responsibility of platforms as duty to act responsibly, identifying the harms. You could add in the elements that deal specifically with reporting a child pornography, which are also platform related. And frankly, I would have thought that if they wanted to move ahead with the criminal code and human rights act provisions, it would have been better in a separate bill. Frankly, it could have been part of the government's
you know, much desired response to the kind of hate that you just said we've seen on the streets. And they could have said, we're trying to deal specifically with that. Here's how we're going to try to deal with it. And then you can have a debate. You know, I think in the case of, of the criminal code prison sentences, my understanding is what, what they're really trying to get at is that you can add in a charge based on a crime where hate was an element and that the penalties associated with it would match the associated penalty. So,
If you've done it for murder, then you've got the life in prison. If you've done something that has a far lesser sentence, then that would again be the commensurate sentence. It's not like you would take something that typically has a five years and suddenly it becomes life just because there's hate involved. But I don't think it's been a well-drafted provision. It may not be what they intended, but it's what they've put forward. And I would hope that they would be open to changing it.
The other side that certainly concerned me was the powers of the Digital Safety Commission. I mean, didn't they try this kind of thing in Bill C-11, you know, going back a couple of years? And again, it seems like I read the report or the comment by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said it just gives these government appointees vast authority, in their words, to interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury, and executioner.
you know, which kind of makes a mockery of the rule of law we have right now. I mean, it just, you know, sort of, it lends itself to people saying this is star chamber. There's no really evidentiary kind of rules, all of that kind of stuff. And I think that's, that should be focused on.
I agree with you. I think there are problems. Let's be clear once again. The commission would not have the final say in something. We still have courts and the courts would still apply. So there are some checks and balances. I think there need to be more. I think the powers that have been granted to
The to this to this commission is are significant. I have concerns about both the powers and the amount of accountability there. And I think part of it, in my view, stems from the fact that I think that they have gotten some of this stuff with online harms. Right.
But public trust and confidence in the system is really going to depend upon how it's enforced. And if you're creating this new commission and you don't develop the sort of public trust in it, then I'm not sure the Canadians are going to have confidence in the approach that's being taken. So I'm...
I actually think that in my ideal world, if someone made me minister for the day, I would hive off the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act stuff and put that into a separate bill if they want to move ahead with it. Focus on the internet stuff and in particular on the internet stuff, do a very deep dive into how it's going to be enforced and ensuring that there are the appropriate checks and balances for the proposed Digital Safety Commission.
Well, I hope they take your advice. They haven't so far on that aspect. I wish they would. Because again, you know, it's one thing to present a bill that I think that would have wise head support, at least addressing an issue, you know, children's harm, et cetera, that people would agree should be addressed. We could debate that, but it's another one they start introducing these things. I mean, I'm sure you noted when Margaret Atwood called this the Trudeau-Orwellian online harm bill, because of course,
Anyone can make that complaint and that can be refused to, of course, but that whole process seems so fraught with real problems.
Yeah, and so then again, that moves us out of the internet stuff. This is why this becomes so problematic because the provisions with the Human Rights Commission do not involve the online specific stuff. And on the Human Rights Act, I agree. I think that there's a real risk that this weaponizes the complaint system. And I'm not sure that the language that Ms. Atwood used is totally accurate, but regardless, I do think that there's legitimate concerns about a system that
where if we just look at what we've seen over the last number of months, that possibility of weaponizing complaints flowing on both sides,
I'm not sure it does anyone any good. I don't think that it gets at the underlying issues in terms of amplification of hate. I'm not sure that it has the kind of desired impact of trying to deal effectively with the hate that exists. And so it may provide some people with the sense of feeling good that they have some outlet to take those complaints, but there is a bit of a price to be paid as part of that.
Have they defined exactly what hate would be or harm? Because I see that expression I'm talking about in the General Gestalt, you know, having really broadened what is, you know, someone's accused of being a racist for, well, look at Selena Robinson, for God's sake, saying that's a crappy piece of land. And that was part of a much bigger statement talking about the ignorance of the Holocaust on the part of
you know, students. And she was targeted in that way. But my point being that, man, suddenly anything can be racist or suddenly anything can be harmful or hurtful, et cetera. Have they, you know, sort of drilled down into what they consider specifically to qualify as that kind of language? Yes, there are provisions. There are definitions for all of these things in the bill.
They're not making it up as they go along. It's generally a pretty high standard. It is a high standard for each of the different elements that are there, whether we're talking about, you know, revenge porn and what that means, content that foments hatred. In fact, they specifically say in the legislation that fomenting hatred isn't
things that involve expressing detestation or vilification, disdain, dislike, trying to discredit, humiliate, hurt or offend. It explicitly says that is not fomenting hatred. So yes, there are definitions there. They also seek to rely on the courts and Supreme Court of Canada there. That doesn't mean that there won't be some debates about whether or not even those rules are right. But no, it's not just sort of general. They actually do have definitions.
Well, I'm thinking again, I'm heavily influenced by how appalled I've been since October 7th. I never thought we were in a country that would have such huge expression of anti-Semitism. Now I'm looking at the existing hate crime legislation and talking to several lawyers. That certainly, what we've seen certainly qualifies as anti-Semitism.
hate crime in this country. Again, I'm not saying that's in the bill. I'm just saying that's sort of the context I'm looking at this at to some degree, that what the heck constitutes all of this stuff? And plus, I mean, I'm happy to hear you say that they've defined what these things are because in the general conversation, just about everything qualifies these days. Are you concerned, though, or is it accurate to say they are throwing out the rules of evidence that this could be, you know, the Digital Safety Commission could do it
in private, you know, uh, and you don't get to, uh, address your accuser, for example. Yeah. So that's, that, that, that's complicated. Yes and no. So yes, in the sense, and you raised two issues, secret hearings and, um,
And the evidence side. On the evidence side, yes. Evidence actually, the law does say that the specific rules of evidence don't necessarily apply. That doesn't mean there won't be rules of evidence. It means that the commission will establish what some of those are. It appears the government is hopeful that the commission can move expeditiously. And one can understand why they would want that to be the case. You know, if you've got a revenge porn or something targeted, bullying that's targeting a child or something.
something that is raising those issues, you want it to be able to move fast. But of course, with those kinds of powers, I don't think you could simply say that, well, we don't need any rules of evidence here. I think that that itself raises some real problems. In terms of whether or not the hearings themselves will be open or closed, the law says that the default is that they are open, but that in exceptional circumstances, they can decide to hold something that's closed. And again, one can understand why that might
be the case if someone, for example, was a victim of revenge porn or it was a child and, you know, the parents along with the child bring forward the complaint.
I don't think we would want to see the people who have been directly affected re-victimized again by having to, by making, by outing that in a public way. So I believe that's what they are getting at with this. But again, we would probably do better if there was a bit more specificity around how that takes place, the standards under which
the commission might move from the default open into the closed, again, to try to bring out that greater public confidence. And I think that's where they've fallen short in some ways here, because you're asking all the right questions. They're the questions that should be asked. And I think that for some of them, there are real answers. But in some instances, the government, at least at this stage, hasn't provided them. And I think that's, I think it's a mistake.
And I'm going back to your one of your solutions or recommendations would be this never should have been one bill It should have been separated these two issues and one one I think and both every bill deserves discussion and debate but the second side of this is
I think their challenge is still trust me. Trust me, we'll do this. Trust me, we'll do that. And it's a period where declining trust. I mean, it doesn't matter. I mean, I'm in the media. I'm in a profession where there is declining trust in the media. But every other aspect, I mean...
whether one agrees with that or not or is a full supporter of the government or not i mean the polls are reflecting that in so many different areas ask them about health care you know the trust in the system well will i get treatment we just got one of those polls this past week
week. The media, as I said, the list is a long one. So I think that's what spurred some of the immediate criticism. Like, well, what you're going to be the judge and jury in the end. And I appreciate you commenting and telling us that they have been specific in some areas and maybe left some where it leads more communication and specific specificity. If I can say that five times fast, I'll get a job. But yeah,
You know what I'm talking about. Absolutely. And, you know, I know the response from some of the government will be that, you know, legislation sets a framework and that some of the specifics come by way of regulation and later. And I understand that. But I also have to say that it's a mistake that this is, and I think you're right, there is a trust deficit right now. And, you
certainly in many communities, and we're dealing with high stakes issues. And so I think that really requires governments to come forward with
as much as possible, fully fleshed out ideas and an openness and willingness to adjust on the fly. And, you know, we haven't seen that as much in the past on some of these other bills with the government where they brought stuff forward and they basically said, well, this is fully baked. And if you're, and you kind of made reference to it earlier, if you're an opponent of it, well, then you're opposing ensuring kids are safe. And I would like to think that the government or would hope the government will dispense with that approach on this. This is important stuff.
There is no one that I would hope is sort of against trying to ensure that kids are safe or dealing with the kind of hate that we've seen. And so if everyone's trying to get to roughly the same endpoint, then it's a question of, okay, what route are we taking? How much specifics do we need along the way? And I think we do need to build the kind of confidence we've been talking about.
more specifics and they're definitely, so there's areas where they haven't provided enough of that kind of detail. And then there's areas where I think they've badly drafted. We've talked about a couple of those. And then I think there are areas that they just would do better to say, this is a separate debate. Let's have that debate, but let's also try to do some good when it comes to some of the platform related issues in those online harms.
All right. But just just to finish off, is it your impression that this bill is still open for debate that way where we could see changes, especially significant ones? I mean, I love your point. There's there's a lot up for grabs here. You know, these are high stakes. I did an editorial to start off the show just talking about how many areas where this, you know, I'm I'm worried.
about some of the economics and financial stuff we're seeing, because you can't just go business as usual. We've got some problems, and I think this is a great example, though, where the stakes are high. We should pay attention. I'm just wondering, again, just your impression. Are they open to making some significant changes to those aspects we've alluded to here?
Yeah, I actually would say, and it's easy to be skeptical given the experience over the last number of years, but I do have the sense that there is at a minimum more openness on this bill than there have been in some of the other bills. I think part of that may stem from the fact that
They did make a change in terms of where the responsibility for this bill lies. So the earlier internet bills were Canadian heritage bills. That was initially their plan was that this would also be fall under Canadian heritage. They switched it to justice.
And I think justice does have a bit more of a history of working through some of the specifics and more of an openness to change. I think they have a greater willingness both to engage with a lot of external experts that can...
better anticipate how implementation might go, identify certain issues or problems that might arise along the way. And, you know, one gets the sense that this bill for this minister, I mean, really it becomes a showcase bill, is personal. And I know Varani, who's the minister, has been actively involved in this issue for quite some time, well before he became minister, I can recall that.
a number of conferences and events I was at for years ago on online harms and consultations I participated in where he was there.
And so I do get the sense that this is a bill that is personal for him, that is one that he does want to see addressed. And that's actually a good starting point for being more open to changes, because when you get a minister who sees this purely through a political lens and it's kind of like, I just got to tick this box and I'm not open to this debate, then you end up with what we ended up with on some of those other bills. And my hope would be that that will not be the case this time.
I hope to. In the meantime, I want to just say, Michael, you're doing fabulous work. You're a guy I check in on all the time because it's always...
thorough, well considered, and of course, from a background of expertise. So I'd recommend going to Michael Geist, Geist is G-E-I-S-T, G-E-I-S-T, Twitter. You can check him out in the blog and his podcast, Law Bites. All of that stuff provides tremendous information and background for those of us who are interested
know how important this issue is and want to turn to someone who spends their life in it. So Michael, thank you for taking the time with us on Money Talks, but thanks for your other work too. Oh, my pleasure. Thanks for the kind words and thanks for having me.
Time now for the quote of the week. Of course, there's so many ways we could sum up political divisions. But one way we've been referring to on Money Talks, I think it's well over 10 years, is anti-establishment and the anti-establishment movement, which is driving political change, I think, obviously, throughout the world. It wasn't so obvious when we started talking about it.
and one that I think, by the way, is going to be pivotal for the years to come. Others will see it, and I think this has a ton of validity, as elites versus everyone else. We've got a great example this week, you may have seen it, with the release of a study that found that the lower your educational level,
the more likely you were to vote conservative. That reminded me of the Hillary Clinton infamous statement that there are two types of people in the world, those that would vote for her and those that are deplorable. And that brings me to the quote of the week by Alex Norosei. He's the Vice President for Economic and Social Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. In quotes, the main political conflict in recent years is between experts or elites and non-experts.
For lack of a better word, the non-experts are called populists. Their complaints have been specific. Elites and experts are arrogant. They have different values. They condescend in annoying ways. They ignore the sometimes legitimate concerns of populists, among others. Whereas experts say they should be listened to because they're more knowledgeable. As I say, somewhere Hillary Clinton's probably smiling.
I want to bring in Michael Levy. You know, I was just talking about this, of course, in the editorial, but I do have big concerns, Mike.
We're not finished this. You cannot have a decline in several important measures like capital investment per person, and that's a key component. You can't have a decline in your economic growth per person called GDP. I mean, there's many other measures, but none of them are pointing upward. That's my real concern, and you're doing it in an environment of record debt. Well, the only way to handle the record debt is to make more money. Yeah.
Absolutely, Mike. And, you know, this really struck me. A headline I saw about the first of the month. Canada is no longer one of the richest nations on Earth. Country after country is passing us by. And the latest from stats can confirm that Canada suffered yet another decline in per capita income.
Per capita GDP, what you were talking about in the fourth quarter of 2023, it's the fifth decline in the past six quarters, and it's the worst sustained drop in per capita GDP in 30 years.
Yeah, and as I say, you know, I think if you polled economists and said, okay, well, if you only could look at one number, what number would you look at? They would look at GDP per capita. I would think that would be it. And as you say, you know, five out of six. The thing is for me, Mike, is it doesn't seem to be ringing alarm bells. That's my point is we should be talking about this. It should be way up on the list of primary concerns for individuals.
Mike, it should be. And we're not just talking, we're for sure not talking about our age demographic, but also talking to a much younger age demographic when we say that in the 2022 budget, projecting Canada would have the slowest growth in per capita GDP among OECD countries out
Listen to this, to 2060. 2060, I mean, we're talking 35 years out, and that's going to affect
the 20-year-olds, the 30-year-olds, I mean, all the way down to teenagers. So it's something that we have to be aware of. But we're no longer one of the richest countries on earth, but among the richer countries, we're on course to be one of the poorer. And it's been a long-term trend. You know, it may have been exacerbated. We just mentioned, you know, five or six quarters. No, but this is – we've been watching this slowdown in productivity, and
Gosh, since the 60s, I think, you know, it's something like that. It's nothing brand new. And, you know, slowly eroded, you know, 5%, 4, 3, that kind of thing. And again, I guess it's not sexy enough an issue. So it's not top of the agenda. And I just keep saying it should be.
And Mike, I know that we leave politics pretty well out of what we talk about, but I've got to be relative here because per capita GDP after adjusting for inflation is now below where it was in the fourth quarter of 2014.
May I point out 2015 was the start of this current Liberal government, so this decline in per capita GDP and the decline of deterioration in productivity performance closely tracks the extraordinary realms of the kind of business investment in Canada.
Government comes in, business investment over the last nine years goes down, per capita GDP goes down, and they're all interrelated. Well, it certainly is. You know, way too much talk out of the progressive left is,
Talks anti-business. I mean, it's as simple as that. They're anti-business. They want higher business taxes You're not going to attract capital with that kind of conversation, you know as simple as that And again, there are consequences to that kind of rhetoric and I mean it's rhetoric from 60 years ago for God's sakes get new but it doesn't recognize the current condition I mean you mentioned
by the way, you know, are falling kind of rating on this, you know, global ranking. Because, boy, I mean, what are we at now? Because I remember when we were like sixth in 1981 or something like that, but we've now fallen. Where are we at?
Where are we? 30th? 31st, Mike? I mean, I can't pull the number out, but I have one more little interesting tidbit. And again, you've clicked this in my mind because you've been talking about it. And Andrew Coyne in his column that I was referencing said, have we been so busy capitalizing on rising housing prices that we neglect to invest in the sort of things that make it possible?
to afford a house? I think that's a great question. It is. And by the way, I think we're 15th right now when it comes among the OECD countries of GDP per capita. But my point also is back to it's not been a priority, not just for politicians, but they're also reflecting the public. The public has chosen other issues. I mean, we're in a democracy, of course, right. But, you know,
they don't appreciate this is the foundation of our standard of living. And people don't usually are keen on declining standard of living. And again, I'll reiterate, and we've said this from the get-go for several years, we have a growing number of Canadians who are falling way behind. The latest poll I saw this past week, 53%. 53% are having trouble with their day-to-day finances. That's what you get when you don't pay attention to fundamentals like this.
And I've got to correct the error, you're right, we're 15th. I was thinking of 31st or 32nd. That's where we are with healthcare, I just mixed up the two. There you go. But the point is well taken though, Mike, that again, unless this starts becoming more front and centre, I look at these lists of concerns when the pollsters come out, what are Canadians' top concerns,
I think this has got to be elevated. If you care about our standard of living, there's one thing to do, raise them up at this point. And I guess, unfortunately, Mike, we're going to get a chance to talk about this further in the future. So in the meantime, you go out and have a great weekend. Thanks, Mike. You too.
Time now for the shocking stat of the week. Lots been made about the Chinese and the development of their electric vehicles, and they brought it to a whole new level. I've got some stats here that are absolutely shocking. I'll give you an example. China currently has 2.5 million EV chargers. You know how many the states has? 130,000. 2.5 million EV chargers compared to 130,000.
China has an EV charger for every seven cars, while the US has an EV charger for every 18 cars. I think Canada's worse, by the way, than that. Meanwhile, China's EV chargers provide four kilowatt per hour compared to one kilowatt per hour in the US. I mean, this is the problem. People say, I do not like to charge my car overnight or the whole day or whatever. And that's still a huge disadvantage. I mean, any of us go to a gas station, we can fill her up in what, three, four minutes.
Now, I'll put that in perspective. The energy difference when you look at four kilowatts per hour compared to one kilowatt per hour is a difference of like powering 17 standard light bulbs in the US versus 67 bulbs in China. But here's the thing that blows me away. And again, these are the kinds of stats that are ignored when we have this whole discussion about going EV. Canada's going all EV by 2035. Are you kidding? The size of the investment
needed for public charging stations is massive. They're assessing this for the US. We don't have a similar stat for Canada, but the point's going to be the same. From 2021 to 2030, charging investments are $28 billion for public and workplace chargers, and that's including of that $15 billion is the installation labor. The battery metal supply chain is required to make this happen.
I mean, you look at it, the amount of capital, the amount of minerals needed to do this is absolutely astronomic. But look at that public investment needed. And we have no sign that's not being budgeted for in a commensurate way. All I'm saying is that the EV revolution with these kind of legislation starts now.
bringing on the reality that's needed for that discussion. But in the meantime, my goodness, China is miles ahead.
I want to bring Ozzy Jurek in right now, and you can find Ozzy and all his work at ozbuzz.ca. Ozzy, I was just listening, and you know, you were here earlier with Michael Levy, and well, every analyst talking about interest rates, of course. But the other thing we have to notice is that the consensus on interest rate movements have been wrong for several months.
You know, shouldn't we have lower interest rates by now? And that's clearly not the case. I appreciate there's a lot of variables out there. And I think there's more strength, for example, especially in the U.S. market than was expected. You know, still the consensus is we will get lower rates in the second half of the year in Canada. We'll wait and see on that one. But, you know, I'm getting a ton of questions about mortgages. And there's a couple of things I wanted to see if you could clear up for us.
sort of misconceptions about there's adjustable rate mortgages and variable rate mortgages. And let me start with just this. If you're someone who's going to get a mortgage, but you think interest rates are going down, what's the best mortgage for you? Because you want your payments to go down rather, you know, as those rates drop.
Well, or maybe you don't want it to come down. The thing right now, the homeowner who has no other goal but just to pay off the mortgage, he has to make this decision. Are the rates going to go higher? And do I take the best five-year rate that we've had in a long time at 4.7%? Or do I go into the variable market? And then my eyebrows go to the back of my head when I realize there is an adjustable price
rate mortgage and a variable rate mortgage and there's different as day and night and so one is called ARM and one is called VRM and so if you want your payment to follow the rates lower if you're right and the rates actually drop then you need an ARM because the payment will be adjusted with the falling rate. On the other hand if your payment stays the same but then your principal changes and your interest rate changes in other words you pay it off faster that's when you want a VRM.
And so that's why you need a mortgage broker. You need a specialist that looks at you, discusses your objectives, and it needs you to be a guesser. You know, nobody really knows what's going on or what's going to happen. You watch on YouTube, the biggest brains in the world tell you what happens to interest rate, and they look at the same facts, and they come up with opposite conclusions. And here's a little homeowner, and there's $134 billion worth of homeowners that have to make this call.
Yeah, and your point's well taken. I mean, you look at if we went back in December, the consensus was we could get a rate drop as soon as this month in March, you know, and then it sort of steadily is pushed out because our economy is weaker than the state's. I always want to remind people this. We kind of get both sides of the border, but we kind of confuse them sometimes.
The U.S. has clearly, when they look at their numbers in January, February, been stronger than was anticipated. That puts off their rate decline. You know, we'll see how long. But in Canada, it's still been similar. We haven't had the complete breakdown that many anticipated if we went back. I mean, in other words, calling interest rates is tough because there are so many variables involved. So I guess, you know, wouldn't we say to people, stand back and see where you are personally? I mean, one of the things I'm always nervous about, Ozzy, is
people are sort of treating their homes and their mortgages related to that home like an investment vehicle. Like I always say, if you think rates are going down, let me tell you about how you can play the Treasury bill market and make some money on that side. You know, that kind of thing. But your home, I don't know. I'm still fairly risk averse when it comes to that. Particularly in this year where we have an election year and I've been telling people for 20 years to always have your mortgage come during election year because generally speaking,
the federal government does not want to be seen to favor one side or another, right? So I'd be quite, and my news letter, I said I did not expect rates to go down, if at all. I didn't expect them to go down first time in June. Perhaps one in September, and a third lowering maybe after the election. I don't know. But the thing is, for us to guess this, the big thing you have to ask yourself, and that's according to Robert McClister from the Financial Post, he says, if you want your payment
follow rates lower, you need an ARM, not a VRM. And then you take a look, well, who has an ARM? Is it your regular bank? Well, no. Most credit unions have one. The National Bank has one, and Tangerine, and Think Financial, and Scotiabank has one, although Scotiabank calls the adjustable rate a variable rate. Yeah, really confused.
So the point is there are options. There is the equitable bank offers also a 40 year mortgage with a third party lender. But the longer the amortization period is, Mike, the more interest you're going to pay. No question about it. It's unfortunately you have to sit down, I would suggest with professionals,
and then it's a cop shoot. - And then, so again, as a rule of thumb, and as you just pointed out, they want to confuse us sometimes, an adjustable rate mortgage is for people who think rates are going down, want their monthly bill to follow it. A variable rate mortgage means, hey, if rates fall, just more of your payment goes to paying off the principal. You're out of that mortgage sooner.
So just use those as sort of guidelines. And as Ozzy just pointed out, you know, there are ins and outs of that to get a professional involved for most of us, our most important financial decision. Certainly not going to borrow. Most of us are never going to borrow more money in our lives and be, you know, and that's what people are finding out with the renewable mortgages. You know, what is it? Forty five percent of all mortgages renewing in 2024, 25.
And the big worry is what is my payment going to be? So that's where the stress is coming. So that certainly goes that. Just quickly, Ozzy, before we go, quickly on the 30-year amortization, that's being debated again right now. As you say, one institution does it with a private lender, but the Equitable Bank, 40-year mortgage. But what do you say about that decision between if you've got 25-year or 20-year, obviously you're going to pay more in interest, but you're paying off your mortgage faster.
Yeah, no question. And the rule of thumb has been forever, 25 years. But the last two or three years, banks have gone further and further out just to even adjust the current variable rate so that you kept your payment the same. The big thing, there's also other questions, Mike. What is the penalty going to be when I renew my mortgage? Right now, I have a choice to say, okay, I'm
I want to have an institution because a fixed rate, they'll charge you an arm and a leg. If the rate right now that I have is 5% and then a year from now it's 3% and I'm on a sell, I have to pay the interest difference on my whole mortgage for the term of the mortgage.
could be tens of thousands of dollars. So you have to ask other questions that are not just rate related. Can I take the mortgage with me if I go to another institution? And there's a whole bunch of questions you need to ask, and that's why I say you need a professional. And then
drink a good stiff scotch before you decide. Yeah, and bring a box of Kleenex. Sorry, just one. I know this is straightforward, but one quick one. If I got a 30 years amortization, that doesn't mean that my mortgage rate is locked in for 30 years.
You know, I just think it's a reminder that you're going to have to renew it still within your institution at that point. Ozzy, as I say, it's not that complicated and you did a great job explaining it. But yeah, get a professional, read up. And as I say, because we're in an environment where clearly interest rates are going up, down and all around. And just because we're in a period where we're debating whether they go down doesn't mean we'll get into another period five years out that we'll be debating them going up.
So good advice. Another good advice by me, boy, is go to ozbuzz.ca. People can do that. Go to ozbuzz.ca. These are the kind of topics you talk about. And it's absolutely free. You just put in your email address. They'll send it out to you once a week. In the meantime, Ozzy, go out and have a great weekend. Thanks, Mike. And new Ozbuzz will be out on Monday, the 18th or the 15th or next Monday. Whatever the damn date is, okay, Ozzy? I think that's it. I'm going to go with the 18th, okay?
And also I have made a new rule in my company and that is that we will continue to have more meetings until we figure out why we have so many meetings and no work is getting done. Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Ozzy Jurek, have a great week.
I'm going to go live to the trading desk now, bring in Victor Adair. Stuff is happening, Victor, but I'm going to go back to something we discussed a few weeks ago that may have changed. One, I was surprised at how the market would, after...
fully paying attention to every interest rate gyration or move or hint, all of a sudden it seemed to ignore it. It was just wanting to go up. It went up no matter what. I'm wondering, did that change? Because I did see a change in interest rates this past week and the market didn't seem so keen. I mean, I was looking at the two year and the 10 year bond, et cetera. It looked like certainly a change in interest rates, but it looks like it translated into stocks this time.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. I mean, the market was living and dying on what the Fed was going to do for the past couple of years, it seems. And since the middle of January...
You know, the interest rate expectations in the interest rate markets have been headed higher. But like the stock market didn't seem to care. It was just powered on momentum. And like that's old. That's yesterday's news, whatever. But here's the long and short of it. In the middle of January, the forward markets were pricing in as much as seven interest rate cuts by the end of this year.
As of the end of this week, we're down to three. So we've taken out a whole one percentage point interest rate increase. And I think that started to matter. And Mike, I got to say, Friday of last week was the day the unemployment
employment report came out. I'm calling that a pivot day because that was the high day for the S&P, the high day for the NASDAQ, the high day for gold, the high day for the SOX index. And in the currency markets, it was a very important low day for the U.S. dollar. So I think
Yes, this week, because inflation seems to be staying higher than expected, the markets are starting to look at, hey, maybe these rising interest rates are going to be a problem.
But we saw it across, let's go back to that March 8th date and you're looking at it as a pivot because I'm looking at all the action up to that point. That's where we had gold had its move. Bitcoin has a big move. You know, stocks obviously into that date. The list is a long one. It seemed that there was some correlation between all of them moving into those significant, some were high, some were just strong moves.
Mike, you just said my magic word. If I'm sitting in front of my screens here, the thing I'm always looking at is correlation. And if correlation seems to change, I wonder what's going on there. And correlation could be, for instance, the Canadian dollar usually trades in lockstep with the S&P 500. It doesn't really care what happens in Canada. It's what's happening in the world, as it were.
um i think some of the the big things we've got here we've got the fed coming up this week uh you know clearly they're not going to change any interest rate but maybe give us some uh guidance as to what's going to happen you know the rest of the year but right now the market is thinking that interest rates are rising and that seems to be for the first time in a long time it's having a bearing and it
You know, we've had in the last week, we had a record inflow of cash, 56 billion into U.S. equity funds. And, you know, when I see that, I'm reminded of Bob Farrell and his 10 rules of trading. And one of them always was the public buys the most at the top. I'm not trying to be a perma bear or anything here. I'm just seeing this looks like a bit of an inflection point or at least a pivot on the short term.
Well, in my little simplistic way, one of the things I also look at is that, you know, when people make a lot of money, sometimes they want to take it off the table. You know, as simple as that, especially when there's now a big change in the environment where when I used to do that, say, back in 2021, well, I was going to get like half a percent if I took the money out of the market. But now if I take it out of the market and lock in my gain is my point here.
I can get 5%, you know, and I just I won't be surprised when I see more people sort of looking at that after the first sort of a small move down where they go, oh, OK, I tried to scalp everything. I'm going to get out of this market. So I'm just saying we'll look around for all these fundamental reasons. In the end, some of it will be people simply taking profits and protecting their money.
Yeah, I feel like I'm repeating myself from last week, but I think I said something similar that, you know, nothing wrong with taking a little money off the table here. We've had an incredible run. You know, I don't know if it's been like 24 years or something since we've seen this kind of momentum in the S&P. And Mike, maybe before we wrap it up, one more thing, volatility.
I think the volatility in the markets is really low, has been here as people are selling vol and there's kind of a complacency out there. I would say just, you know, and we don't give investment advice. I got that. But I would just say be very careful if you're short volatility here. If this market starts to make a move, it could get dramatic quite quickly.
Yeah, and I think the solution here is one of the things I always talk with you, Vic, about you're a short-term trader, I'm a long-term investor, you know, but the point is look at your own stuff. Talk with your professional.
Are you taking the amount of risk you like? Are you willing to take the risk that's there? Do you want some off the table? Are you going to buy when there's a dip? All sorts of things, because we're going to get all sorts of opportunities here, Victor, going forward. You know, there'll be some throwing out the baby with the bathwater if we get a down move. There was some, you know, the rising tide lifts all boats. Some maybe went a little higher than they should have.
but always come back to your own individual finances and say, okay, what risks do I want to take? Is my investment portfolio reflecting that risk? I mean, don't get lazy. Have a look. As Victor says, be careful. That volatility could be heating up.
Mike, you say you're a long-term investor and I'm a short-term trader. I think something that we both have in common is we really focus on managing risk. In other words, try not to lose money, whether you're short-term or long-term. I think that's more important than trying to make money. Just try to spend less and try to lose less and you come out ahead.
Well, I think professionals who are listening to us are nodding their head with that. Vic, I want to remind people, go to victoradair.ca. victoradair.ca. You've got a lot of work to get that up. You're going to do it. You'll put up your charts, put up some other things to help us out. But victoradair.ca. In the meantime, Vic, go out and have a terrific weekend. Thanks, Mike. Time now for this week's Goofy Award.
You know, the CBC announced cuts of, what, up to 10% in its workforce back in December, saying it didn't have the money. After reporting that, by the way, for the first six months of 2023, CBC TV's English language ad revenues were down 16%. Plus, site traffic on the CBC's digital platforms is also down. CBC's Facebook traffic's down about 23%.
But in response to the CBC's cry of financial hardship, the government anteed up an additional $96.1 million. And that brings the total amount paid by taxpayers for the CBC to $1,383,000,000 this year. And that doesn't include millions that are spent by the federal government on ads on the CBC. The CBC has 144 corporate directors who have six-figure salaries.
including the head of the CBC, Catherine Tate. Her salary is between $472,900 and $623,990, and it depends on bonuses and other incentives, plus a myriad of expenses too, which brings me to the Goofy Award. Despite the drop in market share, drop in viewership, the decline in ad revenue, and the promised layoffs,
In the first 10 months, let me undermine, only 10 months of 2023, the CBC paid out $14.9 million in bonuses. They went to 1,143 non-union staff, which begs the question, bonuses for what? How can they possibly be performance-based? Again, I want to remind you, that $14.9 million, that's only for the first 10 months of the year.
But here, think about this. The $14.9 million could have been spent protecting the jobs, but pay them $80,000 a year. $80,000 a year employees, you could protect the jobs of 186 journalists. While the awarding of taxpayer-funded bonuses while laying off workers deserves, I know, a great deal of discussion. It's had that. One aspect that's overlooked, though, when it comes to the CBC and that massive budget is that there's no cost-benefit analysis done.
What are we, the taxpayers, getting in return for $1,383,000? I mean, that's typical in so many areas of government. No cost benefit. Taxpayer ante's up. We don't even know what we're getting, and they're not even measuring it. I mean, there's many areas that government's involved in that need money from health care, maybe the national defense. I mean, could that money be spent elsewhere?
let alone giving it back in form of tax reduction to the people who paid the taxes in the first place. I know, now I'm talking crazy. Some people will think that nearly $1.4 billion
is well spent on the CBC despite the declining audience. I wonder what their last number is, though, when the market share declines to 3% or 2%. Will they still say that's a good idea? Now, others, of course, have different priorities. They want their tax dollars going somewhere else and not the CBC. But my point is simple.
This needs to be discussed and discussed with taxpayers. And things like paying out significant millions in bonuses in difficult financial circumstances when finances are squeezed and people are getting laid off, all it does is provide ammunition for opponents of the CBC who want to see their tax dollars going elsewhere.
That's all the time we have this week. Just another reminder how much we appreciate you listening, but also appreciate when you tell other people about Money Talks and go to Mike's Money Talks on Facebook. Visit with us on Money Talks tweets. Every week we've got a ton of stuff. And go to the website, mikesmoneytalks.ca, where you can listen to any past show also. But it's also a chance to sign up for five minutes with Mike. This is something we send out three times.
times a week. It's very brief. It takes you about two minutes to read it, if that alone, but getting a lot of positive feedback for it. So again, take advantage of that. It's absolutely free. Five minutes with Mike, and you do that by going to mikesmoneytalks.ca. And in the meantime, I hope you have an absolutely fabulous week.